D800E vs. 5D3: Diminishing Returns or Reversal of Returns?

Started Jul 19, 2013 | Discussions thread
elliotn
Senior MemberPosts: 1,053
Like?
Re: Scaling images with BiCubic
In reply to Rick Knepper, Jul 22, 2013

Rick Knepper wrote:

elliotn wrote:

Rick Knepper wrote:

We keep characterizing an 1800x1200 image as small. This size image, viewed on my monitor, is like holding up a 13x19 paper print 18" away or closer. That's really quite large enough to see these "minute" differences quite readily.

'Small' as in small amount of data. Whilst the image on your screen is the same size as a 13x19 print, it is missing most of the print's detail.

But not all of the detail as you are trying to imply. You don't think I haven't compared a print to an electronic image?

No, I'm not trying to imply that your small jpegs are missing all the detail captured by the camera. I'm saying they're missing most of the detail.

These expensive high megapixel cameras are total overkill for your stated application.

You've taken this out of context without addressing the reasoning that led to the conclusion.

I had understood that your application was to make 1200px x 1800px images to be viewed on screen. If that's not the case, the I apologise for misunderstanding you.

I want to help you. Check out this wensite:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

It'll help you in the future to debate on the actual merits of an argument.

A better way to phrase the statement in question is through your own experience such as:

"These expensive high megapixel cameras are a total overkill for me because I just don't see the difference and don't care about the difference."

Stating a falsehood as fact won't cut it here.

You're losing me a bit here. My personal experience is making images for books, magazines and exhibitions. All of these applications benefit from a high resolution camera. That's why I shoot with a D800. In terms of my personal experience with your raw files and your application (small jpegs), I've run the tests, posted the resulting jpegs in this thread and stated that there is no difference in rendered detail. This is not about me not seeing the difference, or not caring about the difference. There is no difference.

Data/detail really does get thrown away when you downsample an image.

This is absolutely correct but what good does restating what I have already stated as far back as the OP do for your point? You are playing out a scenario in your head that isn't making its way onto paper/screen.

12Mp, 24Mp, or 36Mp captures will all give you identical results when downsized to 2Mp.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow